I’ve done a review of Call of Duty: World at War so I can’t help but stay tuned to what people are saying about it. Sure Call of Duty: World at War has the gritty and intense WWII combat experienced allowing you to experience all the action of the European and Pacific fronts. It also has the all new 4-player cooperative campaign. What people are talking most about however IS the addictive and competitive multiplayer.
You end up with new infantry and vehicle-based perks, a higher level cap (65), more weapons, maps and challenges. I’ve played CoD4 and honestly, I haven’t gone back yet. Why would I? Just for a couple modern weapons? I like that maps better in Call of Duty: World at War (except for the couple that still has glitch areas) and I really like the weapon options. I also like having a bolt-action rifle with no scope at all. I also like having more perk options, extra custom class slots (yes I’ve gone prestige), and without a doubt…the flamethrower. Charbroiled badguys anyone?
I keep getting messages from PS3 online friends about buying the game and the question “is it worth it?” I’ve easily played as much as I have with the previous title and I’m still leveling up in multiplayer. Add a single player game, the co-op play and don’t forget zombie mode. The answer is a resounding Yes!
This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 6th, 2009. You can follow any responses to this entry through the Comments RSS 2.0 feed.